|
You guys are right, the Bush administration sucks! Look at what he's done now. (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by ahlamalek
first it doesn't take a nuclear facility to build drugs...its less complex than you think, second building that factory (if it doesn't exist) could be part of the help package. Third you could be surprised, at how many companies did sell reciepies to third world countries and then finally did you ever buy Aspirin, cough syrop, antibiotics, etc etc made in Syria made for less than pennies in the US? I don't think so... |
Ok, this argument is getting unnecessarily complex. The US government is purchasing drugs and giving them to africa for FREE. There is one loser and there is one winner in this arrangement financially as a whole. Yet you all still heap criticism about a freakin donation to fight aids!!! My god get off your high horses already. |
|
|
| Dj_Irish |
| quote: | Originally posted by trintiy
Ah, yes John Smith. I know I don't visit the boards much but I do enjoy our debates. Especially when you post a link to the world socialist website. Let me first start by saying the data you posted is somewhat accurate but not complete.
As a tax paying American, and father of a 5 month old daughter, and a wife just now returning to work after 9 months off for maternity leave I offer the follwing rebuttal:
Under the president's proposal to speed up tax relief, 92 million taxpayers would receive, on average, a tax cut of $1,083 in 2003.
- 46 million married couples would receive an average tax cut of $1,716.
- 34 million families with children would benefit from an average tax cut of $1,473.
- 6 million single women with children would receive an average tax cut of $541.
- 13 million elderly taxpayers would receive an average tax cut of $1,384.
Let's take the average tax break of roughly $1,100 for a typical family of four with two earners making a combined $39,000 in income. Without getting into a debate on the merits of the tax break, here are some of the things you could do with the money, should they get their crumbs, as the socialist so aptly put it:
Establish an emergency savings of three to six months' living expenses. As Karl Romero, a certified financial planner from Santa Ana, Calif., so aptly put it: "You need to have a reserve because the water heater will break. Your car will break down. Something is always happening."
Pay down your credit card debt. If you are like the average credit card holder, you have about $8,000 in charges on your credit cards, maybe more. You might be inclined to think $1,100 wouldn't make a significant dent in your balance. But keep thinking that way and you'll stay in debt purgatory.
For example, let's suppose you're only making the 2 percent minimum payment of $160 on the $8,000. At 18 percent, it will take you 647 months to be rid of the debt -- almost 54 years. In that time, you will pay $22,931.52 in interest.
However, if you paid an extra $91.66 a month (that's the tax break of $1,100 divided by 12 months), and kept on paying it, you would pay off your credit cards in 44 months. As a result, you would pay $2,951.08 in interest. I think that's worth the effort.
Increase your contribution to your 401(k) or similar workplace retirement plan. One-quarter of those with access to 401(k) plans do not participate, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute. Despite the current economic and stock market conditions, your 401(k) is still one of the best ways to save for retirement.
Play catch-up on your retirement savings. Under the so-called "catch-up" provision of the 2001 tax cut, workers age 50 and older can contribute an extra $1,000 for 2002. You don't have to worry where you're going to get that extra $1,000 under Bush's plan.
Open a 529 college savings plan. Earnings in a 529 plan grow tax-free, and when you withdraw the money the federal government does not tax it if you use the money for college expenses.
I hardly think $1,000 is crumbs and inbetween the diapers and formula I would gladly welcome and extra grand in my bank account. And if the rich get a bigger tax break than I'm getting so be it, tax is directly related to income earned why should someone be penalized for earning a good living, the fact of the matter is their still going to have to pay federal taxes. Besides, what the wsws failed to state is that the Bush proposal would end the federal government's practice of taxing company profits twice: once at the corporate level and again on shareholder dividends, which is why executives would receive larger tax breaks not returns. |
Very interesting read Trinity. However, I do have one or two questions.
According to something I read here, the tax cut doesn't really help low-income families at all. You could even say they get hurt by it. This according to the article, and I cite "According to data from the Tax Policy Center, the bottom fifth of households will receive tax cuts from the legislation that average just $1 in 2003, while the next-to-bottom fifth will receive tax cuts averaging $38. This contrasts with the average tax cut of $93,500 that will go to people with incomes of more than $1 million."
The article continues with: "Furthermore, tax cuts targeted on lower-income families are probably the most effective form of tax measure for generating immediate increases in demand, and thus job creation. Economic research shows that low-income families are more likely to spend additional income they receive through a tax cut than higher-income families are. Only if tax cuts are spent will they boost the economy now."
I definetly don't have the knowledge to determine wether this last statement is true or not so it would be interesting to see if anyone here has a take on that. But if it's true why not give the lower-income families a bigger tax break?
My 2nd question is regarding the statement of the relief of taxing company profits twice. Now, this is one of the benefits of the tax cut that get voiced the most I think. However, wouldn't it be better to relieve some the 3 times people's income is taxated?
If I understand correctly, in the U.S. the income of a regular worker is taxed 3 times (please correct me if I'm wrong): Federal tax, State Tax and then taxation as soon as you try to spend the money, i.e. VAT (Value added tax). Why do corporation get this kind of relief but not the people with wages? |
|
|
| Shakka |
A little commentary on removing the tax on dividends:
How can you think this is a bad thing whether or not you're "rich" or "poor"? The whole point of this is that taxing anything twice is wrong, regardless of whether you're Republican or Democrat, Liberal or Conservative. It should be a no brainer to remove one form of the taxation and everyone benefits, not just "rich" or "poor". If you want a bigger portion of the benefit, take your savings and put it in some dividend earning stocks! You'll suddenly find yourself to be part of the "rich". |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
A little commentary on removing the tax on dividends:
How can you think this is a bad thing whether or not you're "rich" or "poor"? The whole point of this is that taxing anything twice is wrong, regardless of whether you're Republican or Democrat, Liberal or Conservative. It should be a no brainer to remove one form of the taxation and everyone benefits, not just "rich" or "poor". If you want a bigger portion of the benefit, take your savings and put it in some dividend earning stocks! You'll suddenly find yourself to be part of the "rich". |
A few comments on your assessment of double-taxation of stock dividends:
According to the Center for Economic and Policy Research dividends aren't really taxed doubly since the corporate tax rate takes into account the dividends being taxed. Since the dividends won't be taxed anymore it makes sense to double the corporate income tax rate so the dividends can be taxed at least once. I don't see this happening since that will mean the rich will have to pay some taxes.
I think it was Warren Buffet who pointed out that his secretary pays a 30% tax rate, the same as Buffet. However after the Bush tax plan Buffet would pay only a 3% tax. The rich tend to get a large portion of their income from dividends while the middle class tend to have just small sums invested which get dividends. So it's no surprise the tax elimination on dividends was created to benefit the rich.
The irony is that Buffet's dividends, held in regular accounts, will now be untaxed, while the secretary will pay income tax on dividends when she withdraws these from her 401K after retirement. This not only benefits rich stockholders, but it continues to assess a tax penalty against workers with their assets on 401K plans. This most certainly does NOT benefit everyone equally. It is class warfare, plain and simple. Dividend-producing stocks will now be taxable for workers (in their 401Ks,) but not for the rich, in their regular brokerage accounts.
Let me say this another way: if you have a 401K, the elimination of stock dividend taxes did not benefit you.
Bush says everyone will benefit equally under the plan, this is the same Bush who says he's an environmentalist because he owns a ranch. This is the same Bush who claimed he was a "compassionate" conservative but will cut the low income tax credit for those making barely over minimum wage. They don't bother hiding the fact they are lying, they know the conservative press (i.e. 99% of the mainstream media) will cover for them.
Just a little FYI on these wonderful "dividends" cuts that will supposedly benefit us all. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
Here's a nice story on some of the "discrepencies" that Bush's tax cut Bill have produced:
| quote: | 2nd Study Finds Gaps in Tax Cuts
By DAVID FIRESTONE
New York Times
Sunday 01 June 2003
WASHINGTON, May 31 — A new study by groups critical of the tax law that President Bush signed on Wednesday has found that 8 million mostly low-income taxpayers will not receive any benefit from the law.
Republicans have said for weeks that the new tax law was designed to benefit all those who pay income taxes.
This is the second time since Congress passed the bill that critics have pointed out how some of its provisions would not help millions of people in the lowest tax brackets. In response to earlier disclosures about the complex bill's fine print, the Senate's chief Republican writer of tax legislation said on Friday that Congress should revise at least some of the law's provisions, involving child tax credits, to broaden their effect.
The new analysis says that the taxpayers who get nothing from the tax law are primarily low-income single people who do not have children and lack income from dividends or capital gains. A large number of low- and moderate-income single parents with children over 16 will also get no benefit from the law, because it did not change the tax rate for such parents who are unmarried.
The study was conducted by two groups who have been critical of the law, the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, which is affiliated with the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal research group.
Last week, the two groups, along with Citizens for Tax Justice, found that 6.5 million minimum-wage families — with nearly 12 million children — would not receive the $400-per-child increase in the child tax credit contained in the new law. The families were left out of the tax law in last-minute Congressional negotiations over how much to cut the tax on stock dividends and capital gains, while keeping the entire bill under the Senate limit of $350 billion.
In combination with the children who were cut from the bill's benefits by the Congressional negotiators, the study says, there are 50 million households — 36 percent of all households in the nation — who will receive no benefit from the tax law. The figure includes people who do not earn enough to owe income tax.
On Friday, Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said he would propose legislation next week to provide the increased child credit to those minimum-wage families, and to make the increase permanent for all taxpayers instead of its expiring in 2005. Such a measure, which would cost at least $61.5 billion over the next 10 years, would require 60 votes to pass in the Senate. Democrats have said they would support the cuts for the minimum-wage families, but the prospects for the full child credit extension are unclear. A spokesman for House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, Republican of Illinois, said the House leadership would take a serious look at the measure.
The Republican National Committee Web site describes the law in detail and summarizes the point that many members of Congress have also made this week.
"Who benefits under the president's plan?" the Web site asks. "Everyone who pays taxes — especially middle-income Americans — as tax rate reductions passed by Congress in 2001 are made effective immediately."
Ari Fleischer, the White House press secretary, made a similar point in his news briefing on Thursday, saying that people in the lowest tax bracket would "benefit the most" from the bill. "This certainly does deliver tax relief to the people who pay income taxes," he said, referring particularly to families with children. And Mr. Grassley said last week that "all taxpayers will see more money in their paychecks."
But the new study found five million taxpayers in the lowest tax bracket who get no benefit from the law, and 2.5 million single parents with children who also pay taxes but get nothing.
In the first category are taxpayers in the 10 percent bracket who have no children and no dividend or capital gains income. This group, which constitutes 89 percent of all single taxpayers in the lowest bracket, do not benefit from the expansion of the 10 percent bracket because they are already in it. They have no children, so they do not get the child credit, and they do not benefit from the law's relief for married couples. Members of this group, who make $9,300 to $13,800 a year, now pay up to $600 in income taxes.
The second group consists of 2.5 million taxpayers in the head-of-household filing status — mostly single parents — who have a child over 16 and who are in the two lowest tax brackets. The study found that they will not receive a tax cut, even though they pay as much as $5,200 in income taxes, because the lowest bracket is not expanded for head-of-household filers under the new law. The child credit is not available, either, because of the age of the children.
There are about a half-million additional taxpayers at all income levels who will not benefit from the new law because they fall between the cracks. They include a childless married couple in the lowest tax bracket who itemize their deductions and cannot take advantage of the increased standard deduction for couples. About 12,000 taxpayers making more than $200,000 will also receive no benefit because they have no dividend or capital gains income, and make too much money to take advantage of the increased exemptions from the alternative minimum tax in the law.
"It's another illustration that the real purpose of this tax bill was not to give a boost to the economy now," said Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "The bill really consists of new provisions, like dividend tax cuts, that administration officials and their supporters in Congress have long wanted for other reasons. If they were really serious about boosting the economy, they would not have excluded these people, because they're the ones who spend rather than save."
Mr. Fleischer, contacted Friday on the president's trip to Europe, said the study failed to take into account that many people who did not benefit from this tax bill received benefits in the president's first tax cut, in 2001.
"If any taxpayers did not get tax relief in this bill, it is because it was such a priority to get them a head start on tax cuts in 2001," he said. "They had a two-year head start, because they were prioritized over upper-income taxpayers. The upper income taxpayers had to wait for tax relief for this bill."
Other Republican officials noted that Congress had also passed an extension of unemployment benefits, and had included $10 billion in the tax law in new spending on Medicaid, the health care program for the poor. Rob Nichols, the chief spokesman for the Treasury Department, said the number of people who would not benefit from this bill was small compared with those who would.
"This legislation helps the working families and small businesses, women, married couples, families with children and elderly taxpayers," Mr. Nichols said. "It's broad-based, and 91 million taxpayers will get relief under this bill, including 69 million taxpayers who benefit from accelerating the expansion of the 10 percent bracket. We view that as very positive."
But the study's authors noted that there are 40 times as many taxpayers who get no benefit from the cuts as there are millionaires who will get 44 percent of the law's tax benefits in 2005.
"This group, more than 8 million taxpayers, ranked lower in the administration's priorities than the 200,000 taxpayers with incomes of a million dollars or more," said Peter Orszag, a senior fellow at Brookings who is co-director of the Tax Policy Center. "That just demonstrates how regressive this tax law is." Mr. Orszag was an economic policy adviser to President Bill Clinton.
Democrats said the failure of the bill to cover all taxpayers was no accident.
"It was a conscious decision to deny relief to taxpayers at the bottom in favor of the very top," said Senator Tom Daschle, the Democratic leader. "And what's so regrettable is that it wasn't a mistake — it's part of a deliberate plan."
But the Democratic outrage brought a chuckle from John Feehery, the spokesman for Mr. Hastert.
"It's interesting that we're having this debate, considering that we tried to make this tax cut as expansive as possible given the constraints we were under," he said. "Democrats on the one hand were saying that we cut taxes too much, but now they're saying we didn't cut taxes enough. Their inconsistency is quite remarkable." |
John Feehery's comments on the end here were quite the wonderful distortion that Rebugs like to create. Yes, , you didn't cut taxes enough for the f$cking poor and lower income families! That's what they (the Dems) meant, and that son of a Bitch knows it! And yes, you did cut taxes too much and too often, especially when you Repugs give 2 s about balancing the budget - you just keep borrowing and borrowing - only to let the future generations pick up the tab for your misgivings. Screw Medicare and Social Security, right? Because with the deficit growing with future numbers holding some 44 trillion (thanx for leaving that study out of your Annual Budget Report back in February, Bush Co.!), these will be nonexistent oh so very soon. Oh yeah, nevermind the crunch this tax cut brings upon cities and states. Yeah tax cuts! |
|
|
| Shakka |
We'd all have more money if all of our greedy elected politicians could learn to curb their spending habits! They still spend like it's 1998.
Yes, Opus, you're correct about what Buffet said, and point well taken. I'm guessing he was making the obvious statement that he benefits a lot less from the substantial tax savings he would recieve than his secretary who could obviously use the money more (though I'm sure she drives a BMW or something!). My hangup is that I don't believe in giving someone a handout if they didn't pay anything in the first place. It seems to me that the direction we're headed is that more "poor" people will be exempt from taxes altogether while the rich continue to pay the lionshare (yeah they'd get a break too, but still pay exponentially more). I don't like the government mandatorily redistributing wealth, especially when that money is mine and I worked very hard for it to have someone just take it from me and give it away to someone who doesn't even pay taxes.
As for the dividends, corporate rate or not, corporations still pay taxes on them and I have to pay the ordinary income rate on them once I receive them (already taxed once) so regardless of "how much" they've already been taxed, the government still gets to stick their hands in my pockets twice when once is all that is necessary.
A longer term benefit of this plan is that it increases the overall incentive for everyone to invest and therefore hopefully reap some benefits. I think too many people expect that there is an easy solution that will fix things in the short term, but it's obviously much more complicated and slower to take effect in reality. |
|
|
| occrider |
| Yea this tax cut is bs ... But it is good in the end when it fails to stimulate the economy and Bush's approval rating goes down. I hate his mentality that a tax cut is the one all solution to every single economic problem. A tax cut was good in 2001 but this is just plain retarded. |
|
|
| Shakka |
It would never happen, but aren't there countries that charge a citizens tax? Something where everyone takes on the same burden? Not a flat tax, but a system where everyone gets equal rights/protections/public goods and in return logically owes the same amount? Of course this will NEVER work, but in a world of equals (liberal ideology), shouldn't we all shoulder the same portion of the burden?
I know it's a ridiculous idea, but perhaps it helps put things in perspective. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
My hangup is that I don't believe in giving someone a handout if they didn't pay anything in the first place. It seems to me that the direction we're headed is that more "poor" people will be exempt from taxes altogether while the rich continue to pay the lionshare (yeah they'd get a break too, but still pay exponentially more). I don't like the government mandatorily redistributing wealth, especially when that money is mine and I worked very hard for it to have someone just take it from me and give it away to someone who doesn't even pay taxes.
|
That is a very good point, I was kind of thinking the same thing. Tax cuts will always benefit those who pay taxes. Thus the poor will generally benefit to a lesser degree than the rich for obvious reasons. However, that shouldn't mean that the poor doesn't benefit at all as it seems like with this cut. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
That is a very good point, I was kind of thinking the same thing. Tax cuts will always benefit those who pay taxes. Thus the poor will generally benefit to a lesser degree than the rich for obvious reasons. However, that shouldn't mean that the poor doesn't benefit at all as it seems like with this cut. |
I agree--they definitely need help. I don't know how you can isolate them as the beneficiaries (With out bickering country it would be hard to get a consensus on it for sure). If you lower some of the lower rates, rich people will still benefit as well. If they lowered the bottom tax rate to 0% from wherever it is now (10-15% I think), everyone will still benefit, not just the poor since everyone would get the break on that portion of their tax bill. I dunno, it seems like being blatantly selective just brings up the issue of "fairness to everyone". I'd much rater see a tax cut right now, regardless of who it goes to. In the long run, increasing government spending, while stimulative in the short run, will only crowd out future investment, basically pushing the problem out further. Giving more money to the people is much better than giving more money to pork barrell politicians, IMO.
:) |
|
|
| LiquidX |
- I think that besides tax cuts, too much money is also been wasted on all the Security ( which some of them are rediculous ). I think that something that will stimulate the economy, is the following: There's millions of imigrants, some ilegal, and a vast majority of them are bringing large scale buisnesses are are booming the job market and really pumping in local money, besides helping with all the INCOME TAX etc etc. Many stay ilegally, right?!?!.. the gov't now wants to deal with the millions of illegal imigrants, but really, thats too much money to deal with. A solution is to make everyone legal, and actually KNOW who the citizens of this country are, and start with the security purposes from the ROOT, ya know what I mean?!?!.. do you know how much money will the gov't make by making all this imigrants legal?!?! I mean.. each will pay a charge to become resident and so on, plus, each will pay income tax, and generate more jobs, each will earn a living, get out of poverty, and spend more money.. common sense. Was commenting on this since we were discussing this on my economics class, and this is also a suggestion that Greenspan commented just months ago.
All in all.. the heck with the TAX CUT.. just watch, it wont do a bare difference.. just benefit the TOP HEADS and Friends. |
|
|
| Dj_Irish |
| ^^^^Wouldn't it actually be a lot more expensive for the US government to turn all those illegal immigrants into legal ones? I mean, suddenly this huge group of people would have to have the same social benefits as averybody else and they would also have the right to earn at least minimum wage for whatever work they are doing. Keeping them illegal is keeping them cheap as far as labour and costs for the society goes. |
|
|
|
|
